TN - Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, Signal Mountain, 30 April 2011 - #13

[Emeralgem]

It is far more costly, imo, for this jurisdiction to have gone about this investigation the way they have given that they might have been able to recover her in May with the assistance of the National Guard that was already in the area-do I have the timeline correct?

Respectfully, I dont know that I think the sheriff would willfully make the determination that it was too expensive to complete this investigation, especially given the fact that we have a very involved immediate family (Gail's siblings) and the combined resources of SMPD, HCSO, TBI and at one point the FBI. To believe all of the agencies would decide to cover this up or drop the ball because of expense-well I cant wrap my brain around it.
I think tomorrow is going to be a very hard day for those who love Gail.

As I see it SMPD did drop the ball..And IMHO Mike Mathis being hired as Matt P's PI is a big conflict of interest...Seems to me HCSO has allowed Mike M and Matt P's attorneys to dictate how and when this case would be investigated from the beginning...JMHO

believe09, are you still thinking tomorrow is the day of Gail's funeral?

That article when first published stated the funeral was Friday. It was then updated and a date added.. Her funeral will be held on the 30th of December.. Thats is a week from tomorrow.

 

[believe09]

As I see it SMPD did drop the ball..And IMHO Mike Mathis being hired as Matt P's PI is a conflict of interest...Seems to me HCSO has allowed Mike M and Matt P's attorneys to dicate how and when this case would be investigated..JMHO

believe09, are you still thinking tomorrow is the day of Gail's funeral?

That article when first published stated the funeral was Friday. It was then updated and a date added.. Her funeral will be held on the 30th of December.. Thats is a week from tomorrow.

Thanks Emeralgem. A funeral on the 30th. No good choices here I think.

 

[Pearl*]

Thanks for pointing this out - Wow! Cannot believe the sheriff said this - perhaps he had read my
thoughts in post#13 on this thread:

The sheriff didn't say this. Or if he did, I'd like to see the link that puts it in context. Here's what I see that he said, and I think it's important to remember he was responding to questions from the media when he made the statements:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/16309313/gail-palmgren-the-cost-of-questions-the-price-for-answers

"I prefer to refer to it as the cost of justice rather than the cost of doing business," Sheriff Hammond says. "To be able to bring cases to closure, successfully, with the right information."

...

"We're fortunate to have deep resources and levels of expertise close by, and just as importantly --already pre-funded with tax dollars," Sheriff Hammond says.
...

Like any investigation, the cost to put a family's pain at ease is not a deterrent.

========

These quotes are copied and pasted directly from the article. The last sentence has no quotation marks, and so I do not know if those would have been the sheriff's exact words.

I really think the media started this particular controversy by doing a story probing into questions about cost, and the sheriff's answers to the questions are being taken out of context to present him as an apathetic modsnip. JMO.

 

[Emeralgem]

First, I'm re-quoting this to clarify what I was responding to. It's a matter of interpretation of the article. There's a tone implied in the word "just," (as well as in '"good' sheriff") and I don't catch the same perspective (or those particular words) in the article. I'm also keeping in mind that the sheriff has seen the results we haven't seen. I don't think his conclusion indicates anything less than an exhaustive investigation, and as we know, multiple agencies have been involved. That, IMO, makes it less likely that they missed anything.



Absolutely, differing opinions abound in this case, and I respect that yours is different from mine.

Yes, there's a host of circumstantial evidence that made it not look too favorable for MP from the beginning. But now we have other evidence that seems to balance it out a little. The sticking point we can't get away from is the portion I bolded above, that unless MP can prove his innocence, some people will always believe he is guilty. He'll never be able to prove his innocence, and I'm glad our justice system isn't designed to make people do that. I still believe there has to be evidence that points away from foul play, since no criminal prosecution has ever gotten off the ground in this case.

I think our biggest difference in opinion is that I'm willing to accept that there's something there I don't need to see. It's no longer a possibility that this case has been somehow swept under the rug. Pulled into the spotlight from every hidden corner would be more like it.

Like you, I question whether there could have been mistakes at some junctures of the process, delaying the discovery of her remains and the jeep in particular, but the outcome remains the same. If there were any other relevant evidence to bring to light (meaning to suggest foul play), I think we would be seeing it. If the evidence we haven't seen involves personal details irrelevant to a criminal investigation, then I don't think the public is owed those details.

I WONDER a lot of things, but that doesn't make me entitled to KNOW those things.

At this point, having driven the road twice and with the awareness of the incredible stress she was under at the time, I think suicide is more likely than foul play, but I'm willing to accept a ruling of "accident," because that too is very possible.

I suspect you didn't catch the same perspective in the article due to the fact I interjected the words..."good" and "just"..IIRC the article stated the sheriff was in agreement with this being a tragic accident.. My response was in regards to not hearing anything thus far from the sheriff on the subject and waiting for our good sheriff to state the same as the article claims he did......

May I ask what information you are referring to when you state we now have information that balances out any unfavorable suspicions we may have had concerning MP? I still view him in an unfavorable light and now believe more than ever he arranged his wife's demise... JMHO

 

[believe09]

The sheriff didn't say this. Or if he did, I'd like to see the link that puts it in context. Here's what I see that he said, and I think it's important to remember he was responding to questions from the media when he made the statements:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/16309313/gail-palmgren-the-cost-of-questions-the-price-for-answers

"I prefer to refer to it as the cost of justice rather than the cost of doing business," Sheriff Hammond says. "To be able to bring cases to closure, successfully, with the right information."

...

"We're fortunate to have deep resources and levels of expertise close by, and just as importantly --already pre-funded with tax dollars," Sheriff Hammond says.
...

Like any investigation, the cost to put a family's pain at ease is not a deterrent.

========

These quotes are copied and pasted directly from the article. The last sentence has no quotation marks, and so I do not know if those would have been the sheriff's exact words.

I really think the media started this particular controversy by doing a story probing into questions about cost, and the sheriff's answers to the questions are being taken out of context to present him as an apathetic modsnip. JMO.

Now this makes sense to me. I agree that it *appears* that the media is creating a story or an angle that isnt what it seems.

 

[Melodie]

It would be pretty odd for the sheriff to go on about how much investigations cost in tax dollars and then tell the taxpayers they have no right to know the result of said investigations. Not unheard of or even uncommon, but odd IMHO.

I personally think the sheriff's comment several days ago about how expensive "murder investigations" are was an attempt to make people less likely to ask for further investigation. I say that only because my own local police force has done this exact thing, it was a pretty big scandal in town when it happened -- keep in mind we're nowhere near Tennessee, though. But the experience affected my opinion on what LE spokespersons say to the press.

This is also not the first time LE has mentioned the cost issue. In a Callie Starnes article from WRCB on July 11, Janice Atkinson, HCSO spokesperson was quoted making a statement about the "hefty price tag" of the investigation. It really bothered me when I read it then and the recent mention of the cost bothers me too. Yes, I'm sure it's expensive, but I don't think it matters. JMO

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15062575/police-missing-woman-case-could-turn-criminal-therefore-no-comment

"While law enforcement won't say what they are doing, Atkinson says it comes with a hefty price tag. She was not able to provide a dollar amount, but says as many as eight officers have contributed to the case during property searches."

 

[Pearl*]

I suspect you didn't catch the same perspective in the article due to the fact I interjected the words..."good" and "just"..IIRC the article stated the sheriff was in agreement with this being a tragic accident.. My response was in regards to not hearing anything thus far from the sheriff on the subject and waiting for our good sheriff to state the same as the article claims he did......

May I ask what information you are referring to when you state we now have information that balances out any unfavorable suspicions we may have had concerning MP? I still view him in an unfavorable light and now believe more than ever he arranged his wife's demise... JMHO

[bbm]

Nothing mysterious. We just have many fewer variables than before. We've got a tight 23 minute timeline with a known beginning point and ending point. I've already posted my impressions from having driven the suspected route twice, as well as my own reflections on the facts that have been reported. I really don't know what I could add.

I can't imagine that LE isn't telling the truth about the timeline, or about anything else for that matter. Again, multiple agencies have been involved, and I don't believe any of them are covering for a criminal. I continue to believe the push for LE to show their cards and their refusal to comply have brought about some very harmful dynamics. Had I been MP, I would have gotten a good lawyer too, as well as exercised my right to remain silent. The pattern has been for those who speak to find their words twisted into meanings they'd never imagined.

As I see it, that's what's happening to the sheriff right now, but I'm betting he can handle it. My hope is that people will stay busy picking on the sheriff and allow the family some peace at the funeral.

 

[Pearl*]

This is also not the first time LE has mentioned the cost issue. In a Callie Starnes article from WRCB on July 11, Janice Atkinson, HCSO spokesperson was quoted making a statement about the "hefty price tag" of the investigation. It really bothered me when I read it then and the recent mention of the cost bothers me too. Yes, I'm sure it's expensive, but I don't think it matters. JMO

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/15062575/police-missing-woman-case-could-turn-criminal-therefore-no-comment

"While law enforcement won't say what they are doing, Atkinson says it comes with a hefty price tag. She was not able to provide a dollar amount, but says as many as eight officers have contributed to the case during property searches."

I re-read the article. The "hefty price tag" quote is from the reporter who wrote the article. There is no quote from Atkinson mentioning cost, although there is reference to her refusal to provide a figure. I can only guess that reflects her answer to a question by the reporter. So did Atkinson ever use the words "hefty price tag" or anything similar, or is that just the wording chosen by the reporter to paraphrase whatever answer she gave to the question? As an aside, it sure is a sensational headline, in my opinion.

ETA: I went back and listened to the video clip as well, included in the link. The only person who made ANY mention of cost was Callie Starnes. Janice Atkinson made several comments, but NOTHING regarding money.

 

[Yoda]

In regards to cell phone last pinging in the spot and the change in altitude, has anyone asked for accountability from the sheriff's department? I remember reading they knew but waited until the leaves were off the trees Really?!!! how did they know she was dead? She could have been injured. If they knew the cell location information why didn't they search? Was her soon to be ex aware of the location? His lawyer had a statement out pretty darn quick. I apologize in advance and do not mean to sound callus, but my concern has completely shifted from the circumstances of her death to the LE and it's non action. When did LE have the cell info? Why was there not a search at the location? Was anyone else aware of the cell ping location?

 

[McSpy]

In regards to cell phone last pinging in the spot and the change in altitude, has anyone asked for accountability from the sheriff's department? I remember reading they knew but waited until the leaves were off the trees Really?!!! how did they know she was dead? She could have been injured. If they knew the cell location information why didn't they search? Was her soon to be ex aware of the location? His lawyer had a statement out pretty darn quick. I apologize in advance and do not mean to sound callus, but my concern has completely shifted from the circumstances of her death to the LE and it's non action. When did LE have the cell info? Why was there not a search at the location? Was anyone else aware of the cell ping location?

Good points! Generally, ping info is not exact. She could have been in a mile or 3 mile radius from the tower her phone pinged from.

Hmmmmm, Why do I have a yellow sign with an exclamation point on top of my post? I must have touched something accidently on my ipad . . . . . .

 

[McSpy]

To my knowledge there hasn't been any announcement claiming no foul play is involved..... however I'm waiting.. And may I add, right now, not too patiently, especially since the article at chattanoogan.com has stated our "good" sheriff is in agreement with Gail's demise just being a terrible accident..JMHO...

These news outfits hire youngsters now to save money--not seasoned journalists. These new reporters shoot from the hip with their stories without checking facts. I don't think the examination of this case is complete to make any claims of no foul play yet. The authorities may have their own feelings about it, but the examination has not been completed as far as I know.

 

[McSpy]

Last night I went to the "Bring Gail Home" fb page to see if there were any updates. Well, I was shocked when I saw the news! My heart sunk--big time! I feel so sorry for her family.

I spent a lot of time examining the photos of the jeep and the scene. I have to say that the trajectory of Gail's vehicle was very odd. If she was going between 30-40 mph, she should have been able to stop before going over the bluff's edge. If it was an accident, another car must have been in her lane heading right at her, for her to turn at that angle to move out of the way. The other vehicle would have been very close too, for her to turn the wheel that sharp. Otherwise, her trajectory would not have been that sharp of an angle from her route of travel. I do wonder if her airbag deployed after she hit the rock. This could have startled her, which could have distracted her from braking in time. At any rate, in my opinion, she should have been able to brake, if she was driving the speed limit or a little above. However, I don't live in the area, so I'm only going by pictures and google maps. JMO

 

[cj1132]

I always give the spouse or parent the benefit of the doubt. For some reason, I am having a hard time doing it here. Something's not right.

 

[JayCeeVee]

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/buffalonews/obituary.aspx?n=gail-palmgren-nowacki&pid=155152269

 

[coeurfragile]

Have we heard anything else about the brake lines seemingly being cut/tampered with? Or was this just speculation that didn't ever amount to anything solid?

How would LE deem this an accident if it was true?

 

[ThoughtFox]

Have we heard anything else about the brake lines seemingly being cut/tampered with? Or was this just speculation that didn't ever amount to anything solid?

How would LE deem this an accident if it was true?

It's never been confirmed, but if the brake line was cut they might say it was damaged by rocks or trees on the way down the mountain.

Personally I don't think we'll ever know the truth about this. But I was saying to my husband that if I were MP's girlfriend, I wouldn't go visit any high places with him, or go out in a boat. Or ever question him about anything, ever. Or ever withhold money. Just saying. :twocents:

 

[Some1Nose]

I always give the spouse or parent the benefit of the doubt. For some reason, I am having a hard time doing it here. Something's not right.

As far as I'm concerned, the flat 400+ pound boulder could not have been taken down by Gail's jeep unless it was already perched on the edge of the cliff and even then it is hard to understand...there is so much distance from the road to the drop-off...something definitely is not right!

And on December 1st, when the jeep was publicly announced as being located, it was stated in MSM that "tips" led to the discovery...from who...hmmmm?

And where did the 23 minute time frame come from? Last I heard, Gail was seen leaving her home at 12:15 pm by SB! And why....if MP, his legal counsel and LE knew that Gail's cell phone took a plunge 10 or so minutes after reportably seen leaving her home, why did they continue to insist that she took off with MP even publicly supporting reported out of state sightings?

Why would such a seemingly articulate, responsible person and loving, devoted parent as Gail toss her phone out of her vehicle and ride off into the sunset?...Does not add up!!

Blessings to all those mourning the loss of Gail!

IMHO

 

[Emeralgem]

Dedicated to the Life and Memory of Gail Palmgren

Gail Palmgren Tribute. - YouTube

 

[confused]

I re-read the article. The "hefty price tag" quote is from the reporter who wrote the article. There is no quote from Atkinson mentioning cost, although there is reference to her refusal to provide a figure. I can only guess that reflects her answer to a question by the reporter. So did Atkinson ever use the words "hefty price tag" or anything similar, or is that just the wording chosen by the reporter to paraphrase whatever answer she gave to the question? As an aside, it sure is a sensational headline, in my opinion.

ETA: I went back and listened to the video clip as well, included in the link. The only person who made ANY mention of cost was Callie Starnes. Janice Atkinson made several comments, but NOTHING regarding money.

One thing that I have learned from all of this is that Callie Starnes is the absolute worst reporter I have ever seen. She has miss quoted, sensationalized, and gotten facts wrong. I am appalled that she used Gail's disappearance as a springboard to her "promotion". (That was stated on FB at one point, and seems to be the case). I will never trust a report that she does as fact, and have stopped watching channel 3 because of her shoddy work.

thanks for pointing out that Janice Atkinson didn't actually say that. Too many would read the previous comment and believe, as it was presented, that she stated those words. There is a huge difference when the reporter adds their own words...

 

[Pearl*]

One thing that I have learned from all of this is that Callie Starnes is the absolute worst reporter I have ever seen. She has miss quoted, sensationalized, and gotten facts wrong. I am appalled that she used Gail's disappearance as a springboard to her "promotion". (That was stated on FB at one point, and seems to be the case). I will never trust a report that she does as fact, and have stopped watching channel 3 because of her shoddy work.

thanks for pointing out that Janice Atkinson didn't actually say that. Too many would read the previous comment and believe, as it was presented, that she stated those words. There is a huge difference when the reporter adds their own words...

You're welcome, but the thanks really goes to Melodie for citing the article. I never would have thought to look more closely otherwise.

This case has taught me a lot about the dangers of taking media reports at face value. And about the differences between legitimate media articles and blogs. And social media? Where to start with that one! Probably not on WS!